Since Rezko has become an issue in the Presidential race, I am creating a sort of primer for the relationship between Obama and Rezko over the years. It will only touch on the issues with Rezko and his indictments as related to Obama as I don’t have nearly the time it would take to show Rezko’s involvement with Blagojevich and others.

Obama fleshed out his relationship with Rezko — including the disclosure that Rezko raised as much as $250,000 for the first three offices Obama sought. But Obama’s explanation was less a font of new data or an act of contrition than the addition of nuance and motive to a long-mysterious relationship.

We fully expect the Clinton campaign, given its current desperation, to do whatever it must in order to keep the Rezko tin can tied to Obama’s bumper.

When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Jan. 27, we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish him.

We said in that same editorial that Obama had been too self-exculpatory in explaining away his ties to Tony Rezko. And we’ve been saying since Nov. 3, 2006 — shortly after the Tribune broke the story of Obama’s house purchase — that Obama needed to fully explain his Rezko connection. He also needed to realize how susceptible he had been to someone who wanted a piece of him — and how his skill at recognizing that covetousness needed to rise to the same stature as his popular appeal.

Friday’s session evidently fulfills both obligations. Might we all be surprised by some future disclosure? Obama’s critics have waited 16 months for some new and cataclysmic Rezko moment to implicate and doom Obama. It hasn’t happened.

Obama said Friday that voters who don’t know what to make of his Rezko connection should, in the wake of his discussion with the Tribune, “see somebody who is not engaged in any wrongdoing … and who they can trust.” Yes, he said, he comes from Chicago. But he has risen in this corrupt Illinois environment without getting entangled in it.

Obama tries to live by “high ethical standards,” he said. Although “that doesn’t excuse the mistake I made here.”

Obama should have had Friday’s discussion 16 months ago. Asked why he didn’t, he spoke of learning, uncomfortably, what it’s like to live in a fishbowl. That made him perhaps too eager to protect personal information — too eager to “control the narrative.”

Less protection, less control, would have meant less hassle for his campaign. That said, Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That’s a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged.

The best synopsis of the Obama Rezko relationship was done by the Trib on January 23rd:

Both men declined to comment on their once-close friendship. Obama has been accused of no wrongdoing involving Rezko and has insisted that he never used his office to benefit Rezko.

Thus far, there is little in the public record to suggest otherwise, and the few exceptions that have come to light appear minor. On Capitol Hill, Obama once gave a summer internship to the son of a Rezko business associate on Rezko’s recommendation. Earlier, as a state senator, Obama was one of several South Side political and community leaders who wrote state and city officials urging approval of public funding for a senior housing project involving Rezko.

But when Rezko pushed for passage in Springfield of a major gambling measure, Obama vocally opposed it.

Obama publicly apologized for his 2005 property deal with Rezko, calling it “boneheaded” because Rezko was widely reported to be under grand jury investigation at the time. And Obama has given to charities $85,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions, including $40,035 last weekend following a published report suggesting that Rezko funneled a $10,000 donation to Obama through a business associate. Aides to Obama say the senator had no knowledge of any such scheme.

Rezko is tied to nearly every major politician in Illinois over the last couple decades going back to Jim Edgar under whom he received his first state contract. Rezko’s reputation as a slumlord largely got started after Obama was not practicing law full time and was largely dealt with by the City of Chicago and not state government entities.

It’s fair to say Obama used poor judgment in buying the strip of land from Rezko, but of the many ties to Rezko in Illinois, a two key things stand out:

Obama did no favors such as providing money from a Member Initiative to Rezko

Obama did not receive any personal benefits from Rezko

The dumbest thing about the relationship from Obama’s standpoint is that one of the most squeaky clean pols in Illinois didn’t think before buying a 10 foot strip of land for above assessed value from a guy about to be indicted. In Illinois that’s amazing, in the Presidential race, it’s the best personal record of any of the candidates.

[…] ArchPundit also currently has a series of five eight &#8220;Rezko primers&#8221; up on his blog (don&#8217;t know if he&#8217;ll add more so check his site for the latest UPDATE: Arch did add a few more and has a summary/linky post on all eight in &#8220;The Rezko Primer&#8220;). His posts&#8217; titles are rather self-explanatory: […]

[…] About Obama and Rezko, Obama has been fully vetted by the Illinois press. […]

Sarah Vanderwicken said,

in January 30th, 2008 at

Please give this to John Kass, who obviously is eager for people to vote for Hillary so that John McCain will be elected.

Karen Gray said,

in February 5th, 2008 at

One thing that you have left out was the fact that Obama could not afford his house and Retsko paid more
for his land than the asking price which gave the Obama’s the ability to buy their house for what they could afford.. He gave them quite a gift. Sounds like quite a benefit to me.

[…] Fifth off: As both ArchPundit and the Chicago Tribune have mentioned, not only is there no evidence that Obama did Rezko&#8217;s bidding after taking Rezko&#8217;s money, Obama has in fact OPPOSED Rezko&#8217;s wishes on key issues. […]

paul said,

in March 4th, 2008 at

What about the 14 mil. Rezko got after the urging of Obama and do you know the Real estate agent got a kushy no show public job ? It took 5 weeks for Obama to respond, and the sellers of the house refuse to talk to press and they referred press to Osamas campaign headquarters. This guy is dirty and will go down, I will be surprised if we don’t see Obama in cuffs doing the perk walk, remember where you heard it first…

[…] has a ton more details in his series on Tony Rezko for anyone who’s actually interested in the […]

Brett said,

in October 12th, 2008 at

Wow, groundbreaking investigative analysis. Because that is what an investigator does when they see someone pay a felon above fair value for an asset, they go, “Gee whiz, that sure was silly of him to pay more than fair value. Nothing to see here though, just a bunch of ‘dumb things’.”

nate said,

in October 27th, 2008 at

Hey, arch…seems like you got quite a few of your facts wrong on the Obama-Rezko deal. You may want to check out this article.

This “primer” is not convincing at all. It looks more like some kind of patchwork justification for a sweet insider deal. Obama and Rezko clearly coordinated this deal, and to say that Obama didn’t do any favors doesn’t exempt him from accepting them under the understanding that he might return some in the future. I hope you are happy that your “squeaky clean” candidate won the election. But later, I hope you will use your creative abilities to write a Ph.D thesis on how sleazy Illinois politics REALLY works.